The web browser you are using does not support some of the technologies used by this site, and therefore some interactivity has been disabled. For the best experience, please consider using a modern, standards-compliant browser, such as Firefox, Chrome, or Safari.

Understanding Prop 23

If passed, Proposition 23 would suspend the California Global Warming Act of 2006 (AB 32) which requires that greenhouse gas emissions in the state be cut to 1990 levels by 2020.

At least 93% of contributions being pumped into California's Proposition 23 are from energy companies that would be regulated by the energy and climate legislation they are trying to overturn. Much of the money has been used to collect the signatures to get Proposition 23 on the ballot, and to fund research that supposedly proves that clean energy would cost jobs.

Some interesting things to note as you explore the interactive map:

The Adam Smith Foundation The foundation was a relatively minor player in Missouri conservative politics until this year's massive contribution in California. We don't know where the money came from, because the Adam Smith Foundation is a 501c4 group, and doesn't have to disclose its contributors. But John Elliott, the foundation's president, runs a design firm that has many coal power industry clients. Could there be a connection?

National Petrochemical and Refiners Association (NPRA) This industry association maintains a very active Federal Political Action Committee which many oil companies are members of. The NPRA receives many contributions from oil companies' PACs, as well as large personal contributions from the oil companies officers and has made large contributions to Proposition 23.

Koch Industries Although the Koch brothers are not known to have contributed directly to Proposition 23, Koch Industries has given to the NPRA, and Koch's fully-owned subsidiary, Flint Hills Resources, is the third largest contributor to the Proposition 23 Campaign. The Koch brothers appear to also support the Pacific Research Institute, which was hired by Proposition 23 and produced research reports which the campaign cites to justify its claims.

Money and influence flows from right to left across the page. Click on company icons to reveal ties. You can even zoom in on the map to show more detail!

Oil Change does not recommend a vote either for or against California's Proposition 23. Educate yourself and vote.

Understanding Prop 26 (and 25)

In California, tax policy and the budget currently have to be enacted by a supermajority. This is one of the main reasons for California's infamous budget gridlock. Prop 26 would expand this requirement to include state and local fees. On the other hand, Prop 25 would eliminate this obstruction.

Proposition 26 would increase the legislative vote requirement from a majority to two-thirds for new and increased state and local fees and charges. Many of California's environmental protection programs are funded with such fees. Opponents of Prop 26 say that it would make it even more difficult to hold polluters accountable, and to raise revenue for basic services.

Proposition 25 would reduce the votes required to pass a budget from a supermajority of two-thirds to a simple majority like most other states. Oil, tobacco, alcohol, and agriculture interests oppose Prop 25.

As of October 24th, Chevron is currently the number one donor to the "Yes on 26/No on 25" PAC.

The California Business PAC, an arm of the California Chamber of Commerce, is a close second. Alcohol, tobacco, and agriculture companies also feature prominently. Overall, business interests have so far spent one third more on 25 and 26 than they have on 23.

Money and influence flows from right to left across the page. Click on company icons to reveal ties. You can even zoom in on the map to show more detail!

Oil Change does not recommend a vote either for or against California's Proposition 26. Educate yourself and vote.